OT: Donald Sterling

[Dback Jon]

Difference might be that Silver, essentially, works for the owners. McDonald's franchise owners don't have that big stick. This may be one of those big Band Aid moves to stop the hemorrhaging until the season is over and a negotiated sanction is hammered out.

And that is why the expulsion would have to come from the owners - Silver can't do it alone.

 

[Cheesebeef]

It is still ok to discriminate against Gays and Native Americans in Pro Sports.

And it was even more accepted 8 years ago when the Brokeback thing happened.

 

[AzCards21]

Um...isn't the above blatantly obvious? I'm still failing to see what any of your rambling about 1st amendment or canceling the team has to do with anything here considering forcing him out isn't a 1st amendment issue and no one is talking about "canceling" his team.

Bottom line is the league is well within its rights to force him to sell and he'll likely make another fortune when he does (after a nasty legal battle I expect from him)

Since I apparently didn't go into enough detail or people wren't willing to listen I figured I would get down to the base points to start. Then I realized what site I was on and have decided not to even engage. Have fun with your public outrage and talking points. If you actually want to discuss the situation PM me.

 

[Dback Jon]

Since I apparently didn't go into enough detail or people wren't willing to listen I figured I would get down to the base points to start. Then I realized what site I was on and have decided not to even engage. Have fun with your public outrage and talking points. If you actually want to discuss the situation PM me.

You started with a false assumption (That this has something to do with the 1st Amendment).

A number of posters engaged you in good discussion/questions, but you ignored most of them.
You were questioned on your characterization of Silver, and you only responded with "you're too emotional"

Sounds like YOU are the one with your mind made up with your public outrage without understanding the issue.

 

[devilalum]

If a player now gets recorded going on a homophobic or racist tirade is he also subject to a lifetime ban?

 

[Cheesebeef]

Since I apparently didn't go into enough detail or people wren't willing to listen I figured I would get down to the base points to start. Then I realized what site I was on and have decided not to even engage. Have fun with your public outrage and talking points. If you actually want to discuss the situation PM me.

most people aren't going to listen when you bring up things right off the bat that make zero sense whatsoever, like making this a 1st amendment issue (which it isn't) or hypothesizing that the NBA might try and "cancel" the Clippers...whatever the hell that means. and even less people are going to listen when they question you on those things and instead of answering them, you simply respond with "you're too emotional" have fun with public outrage and talking points crap.

seems the only emotional person here is the guy who's taking his ball and going home because people called him on his bs.

 

[KloD]

It is still ok to discriminate against Gays and Native Americans in Pro Sports.

By some of the same asshats who are "hurt" by Sterlings ignorance. Watching them practically push each other out of the way to get in front of the cameras and spouting their self-righteous BS about oneness. These folks IMO are as bad or worse than Sterling. There's not a glass house left standing after this week.

 

[AzCards21]

You started with a false assumption (That this has something to do with the 1st Amendment).

A number of posters engaged you in good discussion/questions, but you ignored most of them.
You were questioned on your characterization of Silver, and you only responded with "you're too emotional"

Sounds like YOU are the one with your mind made up with your public outrage without understanding the issue.

Silver was pretty pathetic during his entire speech. Not really what I would consider a strong leader.

This started a few weeks ago with the CEO of Mozilla getting fired for supporting a gay marriage ban. A proposition that actually passed by 54%. But has expanded to what we see now. Free speech is only free if you support the PC people if you don't then you don't get to exorcise your first amendment rights. And they will not only cost you your job but force you to sell assets you own for not being PC enough to satisfy the PC police.

Is this what we want the first amendment to become?

most people aren't going to listen when you bring up things right off the bat that make zero sense whatsoever, like making this a 1st amendment issue (which it isn't) or hypothesizing that the NBA might try and "cancel" the Clippers...whatever the hell that means. and even less people are going to listen when they question you on those things and instead of answering them, you simply respond with "you're too emotional" have fun with public outrage and talking points crap.

seems the only emotional person here is the guy who's taking his ball and going home because people called him on his bs.

Then post a counter position. You have nothing here so far so put a little work into it. If you have something to say then say it. Do you or do you not have a counter perspective to my post? Or are you just butt hurt over it?

 

[AzCards21]

If a player now gets recorded going on a homophobic or racist tirade is he also subject to a lifetime ban?

Well maybe. But slapping his girl around not so much. That's forgivable.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Silver was pretty pathetic during his entire speech. Not really what I would consider a strong leader.

This started a few weeks ago with the CEO of Mozilla getting fired for supporting a gay marriage ban. A proposition that actually passed by 54%. But has expanded to what we see now. Free speech is only free if you support the PC people if you don't then you don't get to exorcise your first amendment rights. And they will not only cost you your job but force you to sell assets you own for not being PC enough to satisfy the PC police.

Is this what we want the first amendment to become?

Why do you continue to bring the First Amendment into this conversation? Several people have already pointed out that it has no bearing and they are correct. This is not a First Amendment issue.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Adam Silver is the Commissioner of the NBA, he is not "congress" nor does he represent the United States Government.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Silver was pretty pathetic during his entire speech. Not really what I would consider a strong leader.

This started a few weeks ago with the CEO of Mozilla getting fired for supporting a gay marriage ban. A proposition that actually passed by 54%. But has expanded to what we see now. Free speech is only free if you support the PC people if you don't then you don't get to exorcise your first amendment rights. And they will not only cost you your job but force you to sell assets you own for not being PC enough to satisfy the PC police.

Is this what we want the first amendment to become?



Then post a counter position. You have nothing here so far so put a little work into it. If you have something to say then say it. Do you or do you not have a counter perspective to my post? Or are you just butt hurt over it?

Lol... I have repeatedly debunked your "1st amendment" argument before you even made it earlier in the thread. it's not my fault you either haven't read the entire thread OR apparently have any clue what the 1st amendment actually protects people from. And how am I supposed to respond to "they will try to cancel the Clippers" when not one single person has espoused that idea?

So, I'll pose this question to you (which has already been posed earlier in the thread when someone brought up the 1st amendment argument): in what way is the government abridging Sterling's right to freedom of speech here?

 

[AzCards21]

Why do you continue to bring the First Amendment into this conversation? Several people have already pointed out that it has no bearing and they are correct. This is not a First Amendment issue.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Adam Silver is the Commissioner of the NBA, he is not "congress" nor does he represent the United States Government.

Oh I see, so as long as congress doesn't get involved your free speech can be limited. So you're at the mercy of mob rule until congress gets involved.

So we are all subject to what the mob can determine is free speech and subject to them taking our property but we don't have free speech unless we get congressional approval.

Aren't the laws congress passes supposed to trickle down to the individual? Do you actually need congressional approval in order to be a jerk?

What government stamp of approval does Sterling need in order to say any stupid thing he wants? I thought this was covered by by the first amendment but apperently you don't think so. What level of government approval does he need to achieve to be such a dick?

 

[AzStevenCal]

Oh I see, so as long as congress doesn't get involved your free speech can be limited. So you're at the mercy of mob rule until congress gets involved.

So we are all subject to what the mob can determine is free speech and subject to them taking our property but we don't have free speech unless we get congressional approval.

Aren't the laws congress passes supposed to trickle down to the individual? Do you actually need congressional approval in order to be a jerk?

What government stamp of approval does Sterling need in order to say any stupid thing he wants? I thought this was covered by by the first amendment but apperently you don't think so. What level of government approval does he need to achieve to be such a dick?

Clearly not.

Sterling can make dumb comments, no one is stopping him. The NBA also has rights and they are executing them. Sterling is not being imprisoned for his comments. The government isn't involved. That's what the First Amendment is for. It's not my opinion. I copied the text of the Amendment so you could see it's not an opinion.

Steve

 

[Cheesebeef]

Clearly not.

Sterling can make dumb comments, no one is stopping him. The NBA also has rights and they are executing them. Sterling is not being imprisoned for his comments. The government isn't involved. That's what the First Amendment is for. It's not my opinion. I copied the text of the Amendment so you could see it's not an opinion.

Steve

Steve, if someone wants to be so willfully ignorant of the laws of this country, or apparently, point blank, doesn't understand them, there's not much more you can do then what any of us have already said. doing anything else hurts my brain and makes me sad about how completely clueless so much of our populace is.

 

[AzCards21]

Lol... I have repeatedly debunked your "1st amendment" argument before you even made it earlier in the thread. it's not my fault you either haven't read the entire thread OR apparently have any clue what the 1st amendment actually protects people from. And how am I supposed to respond to "they will try to cancel the Clippers" when not one single person has espoused that idea?

So, I'll pose this question to you (which has already been posed earlier in the thread when someone brought up the 1st amendment argument): in what way is the government abridging Sterling's right to freedom of speech here?

I find your LOL quite entertaining since you still won't reply to the question but insist I need to read back to past posts that you think you actually made a point in as a reply I need to accept.

Reply here.

In what way is the government a secondary or even third level figure in protecting your right to speech? Aren't they supposed to be the first and foremost protectors of that speech?

Since when did the government that took an oath to uphold the constitution become as long as they aren't the ones depriving you it's all good?

The governments job is to make sure that every citizen gets to say the craziest of crap and is protected in making those claims by the government who swore to uphold that right.

It's not the governments job to stand by and not interfere it's their job to protect those rights no matter how much they don't like it.

Passive aggressive is not an option. You enforce the law. Sitting back and letting others do the dirty work and claiming it wasn't you isn't what our government is supposed to be doing.

It isn't a constitution we can arbitrarily enforce based on who we do or don't like. We either have a first amendment or we have a suggestion that can be used at the whim of those in power at their convenience.

This situation may fit your agenda, will the next one?

 

[AzStevenCal]

I find your LOL quite entertaining since you still won't reply to the question but insist I need to read back to past posts that you think you actually made a point in as a reply I need to accept.

Reply here.

In what way is the government a secondary or even third level figure in protecting your right to speech? Aren't they supposed to be the first and foremost protectors of that speech?

Since when did the government that took an oath to uphold the constitution become as long as they aren't the ones depriving you it's all good?

The governments job is to make sure that every citizen gets to say the craziest of crap and is protected in making those claims by the government who swore to uphold that right.

It's not the governments job to stand by and not interfere it's their job to protect those rights no matter how much they don't like it.

Passive aggressive is not an option. You enforce the law. Sitting back and letting others do the dirty work and claiming it wasn't you isn't what our government is supposed to be doing.

It isn't a constitution we can arbitrarily enforce based on who we do or don't like. We either have a first amendment or we have a suggestion that can be used at the whim of those in power at their convenience.

This situation may fit your agenda, will the next one?

You're still missing the point. No one is stopping him from making his comments. Free Speech does not mean nor does it imply that you can say whatever you want without consequence. Sterling agreed to abide by certain rules. He has violated those rules and he will likely lose his team because of them. But he can keep making those comments and neither the government nor the NBA will stop him. There's your free speech.

Steve

 

[Phrazbit]

I find your LOL quite entertaining since you still won't reply to the question but insist I need to read back to past posts that you think you actually made a point in as a reply I need to accept.

Reply here.

In what way is the government a secondary or even third level figure in protecting your right to speech? Aren't they supposed to be the first and foremost protectors of that speech?

Since when did the government that took an oath to uphold the constitution become as long as they aren't the ones depriving you it's all good?

The governments job is to make sure that every citizen gets to say the craziest of crap and is protected in making those claims by the government who swore to uphold that right.

It's not the governments job to stand by and not interfere it's their job to protect those rights no matter how much they don't like it.

Passive aggressive is not an option. You enforce the law. Sitting back and letting others do the dirty work and claiming it wasn't you isn't what our government is supposed to be doing.

It isn't a constitution we can arbitrarily enforce based on who we do or don't like. We either have a first amendment or we have a suggestion that can be used at the whim of those in power at their convenience.

This situation may fit your agenda, will the next one?

Sterling has the right to be a bigot, he has a right to say he does not want to be associated with black people. The NBA also has a right to say they do not want to be associated with a bigot and no longer do business with him. Sterling has damaged the brand of the league, the league is well within their rights to remove him.

This is not a first amendment issue, the first amendment protects you from prior restraint and prosecution, it does NOT allow you to do something like tell your boss to go to hell and expect him not to fire you, it would not give you the right to tell a moderator of this forum to (blank) themselves. If the government got involved on either side it would be a gross over reach of their authority.

BTW... hey! Steve is back! You and SF88 vanished around the same time, I was beginning to think you were the same person.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I find your LOL quite entertaining since you still won't reply to the question but insist I need to read back to past posts that you think you actually made a point in as a reply I need to accept.

Reply here.

Okay...this is the last time I'll reply because you either have reading comprehension problems or you're willfully misunderstanding the most basic of concepts:

This is the text of the 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Do you know what that means...that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech? It means that we the people are protecting from CONGRESS ENACTING LAWS ABRIDGING FREE SPEECH.

It doesn't mean the government goes out and protects free speech everywhere. It means WE THE PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED FROM THE GOVERNMENT FROM RESTRICTING OUR SPEECH.

In this case, has Congress made a law saying if you say something offensive you automatically lose your job? No. If they DID enact that law, THAT would be a first amendment issue. but they didn't, so it's not.

In what way is the government a secondary or even third level figure in protecting your right to speech?

again, the 1st amendment protects us from the GOVERNMENT ENACTING LAWS WHICH WOULD ABRIDGE FREE SPEECH. They haven't done so here. It's not their job to protect idiots from harming themselves when they speak.

Aren't they supposed to be the first and foremost protectors of that speech?

Yes...only when THE GOVERNMENT ENACTS A LAW THAT ABRIDGES FREE SPEECH. Again, that is not happening here. Are you getting this yet?!

Since when did the government that took an oath to uphold the constitution become as long as they aren't the ones depriving you it's all good?

not sure, but it's not happening now because Sterling getting fired has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT. Again, how you don't get the basic concept of the 1st amendment is beyond me. But maybe if I keep putting it in all caps, you'll start to get the picture. Likely not, but I'm going to keep trying because I know you vote and you should actually know the laws of the land if you're keeping doing so.

The governments job is to make sure that every citizen gets to say the craziest of crap and is protected in making those claims by the government who swore to uphold that right.

please point to ANY document in the constitution that says this. i'd love to see it.

It's not the governments job to stand by and not interfere it's their job to protect those rights no matter how much they don't like it.

you're wrong and have no clue what you're talking about. see above for why.

Passive aggressive is not an option. You enforce the law.

what law has been broken? Did the government enact a law restricting Sterling's speech? Because that's what the 1st amendment is about...one more time...with feeling...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Sitting back and letting others do the dirty work and claiming it wasn't you isn't what our government is supposed to be doing.

It isn't a constitution we can arbitrarily enforce based on who we do or don't like. We either have a first amendment or we have a suggestion that can be used at the whim of those in power at their convenience.

You don't know what the first amendment stands for. Nothing is being arbitrarily enforced because there's nothing for the government to enforce here.

This situation may fit your agenda, will the next one?

pointless discussion.

 

[Mainstreet]

Just a thought. Could there have been some confusion concerning the differences between the First Amendment versus the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment affords Due Process.

If not, carry on.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Sterling has the right to be a bigot, he has a right to say he does not want to be associated with black people. The NBA also has a right to say they do not want to be associated with a bigot and no longer do business with him. Sterling has damaged the brand of the league, the league is well within their rights to remove him.

This is not a first amendment issue, the first amendment protects you from prior restraint and prosecution, it does NOT allow you to do something like tell your boss to go to hell and expect him not to fire you, it would not give you the right to tell a moderator of this forum to (blank) themselves. If the government got involved on either side it would be a gross over reach of their authority.

BTW... hey! Steve is back! You and SF88 vanished around the same time, I was beginning to think you were the same person.

LOL. No, my wife helped herself to our computer leaving me with just my Kindle Fire to post with. I find it frustrating to use the site with a tablet so about the only time I come to the board is when my wife gets sidetracked by something other than the internet. I had to beg her to start re-reading her silly Eve Dallas series so I could have the computer back for the upcoming NFL draft. It's like thirty books long so with a little luck I can keep the iMac through the NBA draft.

Steve

 

[Cheesebeef]

Just a thought. Could there have been some confusion concerning the differences between the First Amendment versus the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment affords Due Process.

If not, carry on.

no.

 

[Phrazbit]

LOL. No, my wife helped herself to our computer leaving me with just my Kindle Fire to post with. I find it frustrating to use the site with a tablet so about the only time I come to the board is when my wife gets sidetracked by something other than the internet. I had to beg her to start re-reading her silly Eve Dallas series so I could have the computer back for the upcoming NFL draft. It's like thirty books long so with a little luck I can keep the iMac through the NBA draft.

Steve

The subtle power of manipulation, well done.

 

[Hoop Head]

I applaud you, Cheesebeef, for your reply to see AzCards' last comment. I didn't expect to see it broken down piece by piece and really have the entire 1st Amendment point of view dismissed as well as you handled it. After the debate had gone back and forth so many times without any of "This isn't a 1st Amendment issue" sticking, I'm surprised more of a smartass or snarky reply wasn't made that included name calling. Well done sir.




Hopefully this thread can move forward with news on the matter rather than more questions whether the NBA was lawful with it's punishment for Sterling. The ban, fine, and groundwork that was laid to remove as an owner was just, given his history plus this incident IMO. Really the next step to things is when the owners will vote to remove him or force him to sell the team. I don't see that coming during the playoffs, especially with the Clippers still in the playoffs. I'd imagine it would be in the best interest of the league and players to vote and know the results before free agency starts considering the potential signings, extensions, and trades the Clippers may make. I don't see many players being happy with signing extensions or staying with the team if Sterling isn't voted to sell. Also any potential buyer I'd expect would want to be involved as soon as possible in personnel decisions that could tie up money and cap space for years to come.

 

[Mainstreet]

no.

I thought perhaps AzCards21 was intermingling the the freedom of speech aspect of the first Amendment with the protection of Due Process afforded in the Fifth Amendment.

Anyway, it was fun to review parts of the United States Constitution.

 

[KloD]

This thread is a perfect, yet sad example of those who scream loudest of a lack of todays government adhering to and protecting constitutional rights, have little to no understanding of what those rights are and the governments function within them. If these were teenagers making these claims and statements it would be understandable and forgivable, but grown men and women repeatedly shouting the same lack of understanding even after endless examples of explanation is just plain sad and dangerous.